• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Eternal Security - Is the Gospel

Status
Not open for further replies.

Micah888

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2018
1,091
778
82
CALGARY
✟28,676.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
We need to understand this Scripture in the light of other Scriptures pertaining to the eternal security of the believer. We cannot isolate this since all Scripture is given by inspiration for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16,17) among other things.

So let's look at one passage which speaks of eternal security before addressing this:

JOHN 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

So it is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who says:
(1) I know my sheep (God's children) and am known of mine
(2) I give unto them the gift of eternal life
(3) They shall NEVER perish -- never face eternal damnation
(4) None shall pluck them out of my hand (I have bracketed "man", since the Greek text simply has "any")
(5) None shall pluck them out of my Father's hand
(6) I and my Father are one (in every divine essential, not that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Father)

Given this foundation and assurance, what are we to make of Rom 11:21,22? If eternal life is not in question, then in what sense can a believer be "cut off"? The context makes it clear that simply because God has set aside unbelieving Israel temporarily and blinded them to the truth, no Gentile should boast about his salvation and demean the Jews, or put them down in any way:
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.(v 18)

The reason given is that believing Israel is "the good olive tree" and Gentiles are "branches" which have been grafted in from "the wild olive tree". The Gospel was to go to the Jews first, and only then to the Gentiles. So Gentile Christians should understand that the root and tree of the Church is believing Israel. In view of this any attitude of pride, or contempt for unbelieving Jews would be severely dealt with, since it would be a sin.

So now we can interpret the cutting off as either of two things (1) excommunication from fellowship with other Christians (Jews or Gentiles) or (2) premature death for persisting in sin.

The apostle John wrote that "there is a sin unto death", which means that in some cases God will cut short the life of a Christian who brings shame to the name of Christ. We see this illustrated in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and we note that Paul admonishes Christians to not partake unworthily of the Lord's Supper since there are severe consequences, including premature death.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Doug Melven
Upvote 0

zoidar

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2010
7,539
2,694
✟1,064,467.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
We need to understand this Scripture in the light of other Scriptures pertaining to the eternal security of the believer. We cannot isolate this since all Scripture is given by inspiration for doctrine (2 Tim 3:16,17) among other things.

So let's look at one passage which speaks of eternal security before addressing this:

JOHN 10
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one.

So it is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who says:
(1) I know my sheep (God's children) and am known of mine
(2) I give unto them the gift of eternal life
(3) They shall NEVER perish -- never face eternal damnation
(4) None shall pluck them out of my hand (I have bracketed "man", since the Greek text simply has "any")
(5) None shall pluck them out of my Father's hand
(6) I and my Father are one (in every divine essential, not that the Father is the Son, or the Son is the Father)

Given this foundation and assurance, what are we to make of Rom 11:21,22? If eternal life is not in question, then in what sense can a believer be "cut off"? The context makes it clear that simply because God has set aside unbelieving Israel temporarily and blinded them to the truth, no Gentile should boast about his salvation and demean the Jews, or put them down in any way:
Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.(v 18)

The reason given is that believing Israel is "the good olive tree" and Gentiles are "branches" which have been grafted in from "the wild olive tree". The Gospel was to go to the Jews first, and only then to the Gentiles. So Gentile Christians should understand that the root and tree of the Church is believing Israel. In view of this any attitude of pride, or contempt for unbelieving Jews would be severely dealt with, since it would be a sin.

So now we can interpret the cutting off as either of two things (1) excommunication from fellowship with other Christians (Jews or Gentiles) or (2) premature death for persisting in sin.

The apostle John wrote that "there is a sin unto death", which means that in some cases God will cut short the life of a Christian who brings shame to the name of Christ. We see this illustrated in the case of Ananias and Sapphira, and we note that Paul admonishes Christians to not partake unworthily of the Lord's Supper since there are severe consequences, including premature death.

I really appreciate that you took time to give an explaination of what and why you believe what you do.

I understand fully that many people like to believe in eternal security, but I can't teach it since I don't think it's biblical. It doesn't make you or any other who believes in it less Christian of course, but I see a danger in this teaching, that people will take their salvation for granted and not really live in obedience.

You could actually use your reasoning the other way around, to use Rom 11 (and also other passages) to prove that Jesus doesn't talk about eternal security in John 10.

What would you say when Jesus talks about he being the vine and we the branches? Is he also talking about Jews and Gentiles? Even I agree with you that Paul talks about Jews and Gentiles in Rom 11, he still uses this as an example that if Jews were cut off who were the original branches, then how much easier will we Gentiles be cut off if we don't abide in him. It's clearly a warning to the Christians in Rome (and also to us). I would say it's almost a parallel to John 15.

15:1 “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7 If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and soprove to be My disciples. 9 Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 11 These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟277,707.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand your concern. I was the same way until I began to learn about the early church. I’m not Orthodox or Catholic but everything I’ve learned is in line with the Orthodox Church, the scriptures, and the early church fathers. The Orthodox Church is nothing like the Roman Catholic Church. It was established by Peter in Antioch and is mentioned in the Bible several times. Although they were mentioned as the Church of God it was in Antioch that people were first called Christians. The Orthodox Church kicked the Roman church out of the Catholic Church in 1054AD for many heresies. They have always kept their teachings the same as the apostles handed down. They added the name Orthodox to their church which means traditional. Many people don’t understand that the Roman Church was at one time a true apostolic church but slowly began to change and by the 10th century began to adopt a lot of unbiblical teachings and practices. I wouldn’t say they hate the Roman church but they definitely strongly disagree with the Roman teachings. Even so much as to say the Roman church is not catholic.

This was written by St Iranaeus in 180AD. Long before the Catholic Church disputes. Adversus Haereses book 5 chapter 27

And to as many as continue in their lovetowards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God, He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending. It is in this matter just as occurs in the case of a flood of light: those who have blinded themselves, or have been blinded by others, are for ever deprived of the enjoyment of light. It is not, [however], that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of blindness, but it is that the blindness itself has brought calamity upon them: and therefore the Lord declared, He that believes in Me is not condemned, John 3:18-21 that is, is not separated from God, for he is united to God through faith. On the other hand, He says, He that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God; that is, he separated himself from God of his own accord. For this is the condemnation, that light has come into this world, and men have loved darkness rather than light. For every one who does evil hates the light, and comes not to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that he has wrought them in God.

This is written by St Augustine some time between 370-430AD.

"I have now to consider the subject of perseverance with greater care; for in the former book also I said some things on this subject when I was discussing the beginning of faith. I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling. Therefore it is uncertain whether any one has received this gift so long as he is still alive. For if he fall before he dies, he is, of course, said not to have persevered; and most truly is it said. How, then, should he be said to have received or to have had perseverance who has not persevered? For if any one have continence, and fall away from that virtue and become incontinent, - or, in like manner, if he have righteousness, if patience, if even faith, and fall away, he is rightly said to have had these virtues and to have them no longer; for he was continent, or he was righteous, or he was patient, or he was believing, as long as he was so; but when he ceased to be so, he no longer is what he was. But how should he who Has not persevered have ever been persevering, since it is only by persevering that any one shows himself persevering, - and this he has not done? But lest any one should object to this, and say, If from the time at which any one became a believer he has lived - for the sake of argument - ten years, and in the midst of them has fallen from the faith, has he not persevered for five years? I am not contending about words. If it be thought that this also should be called perseverance, as it were for so long as it lasts, assuredly he is not to be said to have had in any degree that perseverance of which we are now discoursing, by which one perseveres in Christ even to the end. And the believer of one year, or of a period as much shorter as may be conceived of, if he has lived faithfully until he died, has rather had this perseverance than the believer of many years’ standing, if a little time before his death he has fallen away from the steadfastness of his faith."

"But, on the other hand, “of his own will a man forsakes God, so as to be deservedly forsaken by God.” Who would deny this? But it is for that reason we ask not to be led into temptation, so that this may not happen. And if we are heard, certainly it does not happen, because God does not allow it to happen. For nothing comes to pass except what either He Himself does, or Himself allows to be done. Therefore He is powerful both to turn wills from evil to good, and to convert those that are inclined to fall, or to direct them into a way pleasing to Himself. For to Him it is not said in vain, “O God, Thou shalt turn again and quicken us;” it is not vainly said, “Give not my foot to be moved;” it is not vainly said, “Give me not over, O Lord, from my desire to the sinner;” finally, not to mention many passages, since probably more may occur to you, it is not vainly said, “Lead us not into temptation.” For whoever is not led into temptation, certainly is not led into the temptation of his own evil will; and he who is not led into the temptation of his own evil will, is absolutely led into no temptation. For “every one is tempted,” as it is written, “when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed;” “but God tempteth no man,” - that is to say, with a hurtful temptation. For temptation is moreover beneficial by which we are not deceived or overwhelmed, but proved, according to that which is said, “Prove me, O Lord, and try me.” Therefore, with that hurtful temptation which the apostle signifies when he says, “Lost by some means the tempter have tempted you, and our labor be in vain,” “God tempteth no man,” as I have said, - that is, He brings or leads no one into temptation. For to be tempted and not to be led into temptation is not evil, - nay, it is even good; for this it is to be proved. When, therefore, we say to God, “Lead us not into temptation,” what do we say but, “Permit us not to be led”? Whence some pray in this manner, and it is read in many codices, and the most blessed Cyprian thus uses it: “Do not suffer us to be led into temptation.” In the Greek gospel, however, I have never found it otherwise than, “Lead us not into temptation.” We live, therefore, more securely if we give up the whole to God, and do not entrust ourselves partly to Him and partly to ourselves, as that venerable martyr saw. For when he would expound the same clause of the prayer, he says among other things, “But when we ask that we may not come into temptation, we are reminded of our infirmity and weakness while we thus ask, lest any should insolently vaunt himself, - lest any should proudly and arrogantly assume anything to himself, - lest any should take to himself the glory either of confession or suffering as his own; since the Lord Himself, teaching humility, said, ‘Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation; the Spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ So that when a humble and submissive confession comes first and all is attributed to God, whatever is sought for suppliantly, with the fear of God, may be granted by His own loving-kindness.”" (Augustine, On the Gift of Perseverance, Ch. I, XII)
I like your post very much and agree with it except that I have to say I have little respect for Augustine even though, for some reason I don't quite understand, the catholic church is enamored of him. I don't know if the orthodox church has the same feelings for him. Do you?
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,869
8,389
Dallas
✟1,096,103.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
A doctrine can disagree with Scripture and you will accept it

Of course not. I learned that OSAS is incorrect.

This denies Hebrews 13:5
He will never leave us or forsake us

““I tell you the truth, everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, the Son of Man will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels. But anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels.
‭‭Luke‬ ‭12:8-9

Yes God will not forsake someone if they turn to Him but He will forsake someone who turns away from Him.

Notice what Augustine said

But, on the other hand, “of his own will a man forsakes God, so as to be deservedly forsaken by God.”

Now is Jesus denying Hebrews 13:15? Does what Augustine said coincide with what Jesus said?

Now about the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the only Christian Church for the first few centuries my friend. Haven’t you ever wondered why every early church writing is Catholic? The apostolic Church of God adopted the name Catholic some time between 107AD-180AD. People are so blown up about the term Catholic because of the Roman church. They claim to be the apostolic church but they’re not. They were long ago before they began to change the teachings of the church and they were kicked out for making those changes. They added the filioque to the Nicene Creed, they demanded priest celibacy, and the big one they claimed the Roman bishop (pope) had authority over all the churches. Before their claim of papal supremacy there was no pope. There were 5 bishops known as the pentarchy who governed the churches in their area or jurisdiction. They were the bishop of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome. These 5 bishops would meet together at councils to make decisions in the church. The bishop of Rome sent letters to all the churches demanding that they must submit to his authority or they would be forced to close their church. All of the Eastern Churches excommunicated the Roman church and in retaliation the Roman church excommunicated the Eastern Churches. The Eastern churches sought to keep things the way they had always been. The Roman church sought to rule over all the churches and make many changes based solely on the decision of the Roman bishop or pope. So we have one church and two groups within that church. One group wants to make changes, the other wants to keep the church the same way it’s always been. So which group actually left the original church? Was it the group that wanted to make changes or the group that wanted to keep things the way they have always been? If you would examine the Catholic teachings of the first few centuries you will see what the original church taught. It is absolutely 100% biblical. As I have shown you OSAS is a false teaching from a man that claims God only chooses certain people to be saved and only those people can come to Christ. He taught that we have no free will and no choice about our salvation. That is where eternal security came from. This teaching means that God condemns the people that He doesn’t choose to the lake of fire and that person never had any chance of salvation. This would contradict that God loves everyone in the world. All I’m saying is please examine the evidence my friend. There are answers for every scripture that people believe as evidence of OSAS as I have shown you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,869
8,389
Dallas
✟1,096,103.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I like your post very much and agree with it except that I have to say I have little respect for Augustine even though, for some reason I don't quite understand, the catholic church is enamored of him. I don't know if the orthodox church has the same feelings for him. Do you?

I don’t see why the Orthodox Church would have any disagreement with Augustine. He lived centuries before the problems began in the Roman Church. All the churches were still one Catholic Church at that time which means basically they were all Orthodox at that time.
 
Upvote 0

GodsGrace101

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 17, 2018
6,713
2,297
Tuscany
✟277,707.00
Country
Italy
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don’t see why the Orthodox Church would have any disagreement with Augustine. He lived centuries before the problems began in the Roman Church. All the churches were still one Catholic Church at that time which means basically they were all Orthodox at that time.
He came up with original sin.
He believed unbaptized babies went to hell .
He invented predestination which did not exist.
He was a gnostic and manichaen for about ten years.
I should do a study one day and find out if the orthodox reject his teachings.
I know they reject predestination.
I know they reject eternal security.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Site Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
25,869
8,389
Dallas
✟1,096,103.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
He came up with original sin.
He believed unbaptized babies went to hell .
He invented predestination which did not exist.
He was a gnostic and manichaen for about ten years.
I should do a study one day and find out if the orthodox reject his teachings.
I know they reject predestination.
I know they reject eternal security.

I haven’t read a lot of his writings. I was unaware of those beliefs. As for the baptism of babies I’m not aware of Bible verses that deal with what happens to children who are too young to believe. I don’t believe water baptism by itself can save a person. They must be baptized with the Holy Spirit. But children can be too young to understand. I’ll have to recheck what Jesus said about believing as children. Perhaps there’s something there.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: zoidar
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,585
61
Wyoming
✟90,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
““I tell you the truth, everyone who acknowledges me publicly here on earth, the Son of Man will also acknowledge in the presence of God’s angels. But anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels.
‭‭Luke‬ ‭12:8-9
Peter denied Jesus 3 times and there is no record of his repenting.
And Jesus did not deny him.
Did Jesus lie, or maybe we don't know what Jesus meant about denying Him.

Yes God will not forsake someone if they turn to Him but He will forsake someone who turns away from Him.
If He had just said "I will not leave you" you would have a point. But that is not what it says.
He says in addition to not leaving us, He won't forsake us. That is He won't leave us to our own devices.

Being born-again is not just getting a new standing. We are new creations.
We have been sealed with the Holy Spirit till the day of redemption.
Strong's No.: G4972
Greek: σφραγίζω
Transliteration: sphragizō
Pronunciation: sfrag-id'-zo
Definition:
From G4973; to stamp (with a signet or private mark) for security or preservation (literally or figuratively); by implication to keep secret to attest: - (set a set to) seal up stop.

If we lost our salvation, the Holy Spirit would have failed to seal us until the day of redemption.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand

Did Jesus give us eternal life for following Him, or for believing in Him as our Savior?
For believing, then we follow. It can't be for following as then we would be getting eternal life as a reward.
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Deny us of what?
Jesus said this also. Then later on Peter denied knowing Him, not once, not twice, but three times. Looks like a pattern of denial. Yet Jesus did not deny him.
Maybe we don't quite understand what this denial is.
There is no record of Peter repenting, Jesus went to him.
Jesus asked Peter if he really loved Him three times. This was a denial of Peter's love for the Lord, which he previously had prided himself on (i.e. "everyone else might fall away, but I won't"). The third time Jesus asked whether Peter actually phileo-ed Him, which was to say, do you even love me with a brotherly love? Which Peter had just affirmed twice, not being able to honestly say that he agapeo-ed Him. And the third time Peter was even grieved by the Lord's denial of Peter's love for Him.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Yes, let us refer to contextual application of that passage.
Timothy was written to the Jews.
Who to this day, some of them deny Jesus as Messiah.
That is to whom the epistle of Timothy referred.
We, as in those In Christ, cannot deny the Christ we are in covenant with and who's Holy Spirit indwells us. That would be rather odd, don't you agree? We deny Christ but we're indwelt as Christians?

This is a wonderful site to access, in my view, for study as pertains to contextual agreement of scriptural teachings.

Excerpting from the full article found here> LINKED

"if we deny him, he also will deny us: there is a denying of Christ in words; so it is denied by the Jews that Christ is come in the flesh, and that Jesus is the Messiah; and some that have bore the Christian name, though very unworthily, have denied his true deity, his real humanity, proper sonship, and the efficacy of his blood, righteousness, and sacrifice, for pardon, justification, and atonement: and there is a denying of him in works; so some that profess to know him, and do own him in his person and offices, yet in works deny him; their conversation is not becoming their profession of him; they have the form of godliness, but deny the power of it: there is a secret and silent denying of him, when men are ashamed of him, and do not confess him; and there is an open denying of him, by such who set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh throughout the earth; there is a partial denying of Christ, which was Peter's case, though his faith in him, and love to him, were not lost; and there is a total denying of him, a thorough apostasy, and from which there is no recovery; and if there be any such apostates among those who have named the name of Christ, he will deny them, he will not own them for his another day; he will set them at his left hand; he will declare he knows them not, and will banish them from his presence for evermore. This is another branch of the faithful saying; this will certainly be the case; Christ himself has said it, Matthew 10:33." "
1 and 2 Timothy was written to neither Jews nor Gentiles, but to a singular pastor of a church, Paul's protege Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess and whose father was a Greek.
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Until it is put in it's context.
2:36 And now therefore thus saith the LORD, the God of Israel, concerning this city, whereof ye say, It shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence;
32:37 Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
32:38 And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
32:39 And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:
32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

This is not even referring to the church.
Look in verses 36 and 37 to see who it is referring to.
In verse 40, the everlasting covenant He makes with Israel is not the New Covenant? Is there a third covenant that we're not aware of? Is the New Covenant not also to the Gentiles?
 
Upvote 0

Freedom~Sprite

America is free! If U R opposed U R Free to LEAVE!
Feb 11, 2017
365
181
Miami
✟31,568.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
1 and 2 Timothy was written to neither Jews nor Gentiles, but to a singular pastor of a church, Paul's protege Timothy, whose mother was a Jewess and whose father was a Greek.
I Timothy was part of the Pauline Pastoral letters, which are 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy and the Titus. 1st Timothy was written by Paul during his imprisonment it is believed, one of the last of his letters before his martyrdom by beheading, and concerning the troubles in the church at Ephesus and other regions in Asia.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,585
61
Wyoming
✟90,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
esus asked Peter if he really loved Him three times. This was a denial of Peter's love for the Lord, which he previously had prided himself on (i.e. "everyone else might fall away, but I won't"). The third time Jesus asked whether Petr actually phileo-ed Him, which was to say, do you even love me with a brotherly love? And the third time Peter was even grieved by the Lord's denial of Peter's love for Him.
Jesus said, "If you deny me, I will deny you".
Nothing about being able to repent or anything like that. Just if you deny Jesus, He will deny you.
Can Jesus get any clearer of what will happen if He is denied?
Peter denied Jesus, and Jesus did not deny Peter.
My point is, we don't understand what Jesus meant when He said, "If you deny me, I will deny you."
Don't make doctrine out of something that is not entirely clear.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,585
61
Wyoming
✟90,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In verse 40, the everlasting covenant He makes with Israel is not the New Covenant? Is there a third covenant that we're not aware of? Is the New Covenant not also to the Gentiles?
No, because in the previous verses, He states who He is talking to.
This is clearly not referring to Gentiles or the Church. Because He references the land.
There are times when a promise to Israel can be taken by the church.
Zephaniah 3:17 for example.
3:16 In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
There is a reference to Jerusalem and Zion, but not to the land.
There is more than one Jerusalem.
Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

But, if this were a promise to the church, it would be a wonderful promise to show eternal security.
32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

God will put His fear in us, so we will not depart.
God said He would not turn away from them. Throughout the OT we see God turning away from Israel because of there idolatrous ways.
Isn't God wonderful?
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Jesus DID deny Peter; just not unto the damnation of Peter. And this is not to say that Jesus' denial of others would not be to their damnation. I would say, if you have denied the Lord in the past, seek the same mercy that the Lord gave to Peter. But if you haven't denied him or even if you have, don't presume that denying him (again or for the first time) is something that you can do flippantly and not suffer any consequences; as the consequences may even be eternal damnation!
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
No, because in the previous verses, He states who He is talking to.
This is clearly not referring to Gentiles or the Church. Because He references the land.
There are times when a promise to Israel can be taken by the church.
Zephaniah 3:17 for example.
3:16 In that day it shall be said to Jerusalem, Fear thou not: and to Zion, Let not thine hands be slack.
3:17 The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty; he will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.
There is a reference to Jerusalem and Zion, but not to the land.
There is more than one Jerusalem.
Galatians 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
4:26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

But, if this were a promise to the church, it would be a wonderful promise to show eternal security.
32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.

God will put His fear in us, so we will not depart.
God said He would not turn away from them. Throughout the OT we see God turning away from Israel because of there idolatrous ways.
Isn't God wonderful?
Oh ye of litle faith! Tell me about this third covenant that you speak of that doesn't apply to Gentiles but only to Jews, that is NOT the New Covenant declared in the New Testament!
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
I already told you; why do you want to hear it again? Will you also be one of His disciples? Maybe you should backtrack a little and see what you've missed in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

Doug Melven

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,080
2,585
61
Wyoming
✟90,808.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Oh ye of litle faith! Tell me about this third covenant that you speak of that doesn't apply to Gentiles but only to Jews, that is NOT the New Covenant declared in the New Testament!
Did you read the Scripture?
Were Gentiles ever in the land?
Did the Gentiles ever need to be gathered from the countries they had been driven to?
Also, if this Jeremiah Scripture applied to the church, it would be a wonderful promise to show eternal security.
God said in that covenant He would not leave them, and the ones under the covenant would not leave Him.
Still want to use this Scripture?
I already told you; why do you want to hear it again? Will you also be one of His disciples? Maybe you should backtrack a little and see what you've missed in this thread.
I have read through the Bible many times. I am unfamiliar with any passage that shows Jesus denying Peter.
Really not up to reading through 19 pages of this thread to find something like that.
 
Upvote 0

justbyfaith

justified sinner
May 19, 2017
3,461
572
52
Southern California
✟3,094.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvary Chapel
Marital Status
Married
Did you read the Scripture?
Were Gentiles ever in the land?
Did the Gentiles ever need to be gathered from the countries they had been driven to?
Also, if this Jeremiah Scripture applied to the church, it would be a wonderful promise to show eternal security.
God said in that covenant He would not leave them, and the ones under the covenant would not leave Him.
Still want to use this Scripture?

I have read through the Bible many times. I am unfamiliar with any passage that shows Jesus denying Peter.
Really not up to reading through 19 pages of this thread to find something like that.
post #369.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.